xapp_frameToPhotoshop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare it non-read-only but non-destructive and closed-world. The description does add real side-effect context: it creates a new document or inserts a layer into the *active* one, which warns the agent that an existing document can be modified. It omits prerequisites (AE/PR/PS must be running, a document must be active for asLayer) and what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with parenthetical qualifiers that each add distinct information rather than restating the name. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter cross-application mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers intent but not the operational prerequisites an agent needs before calling it — which host apps must be live, whether a Photoshop doc must be open, and what gets returned (new doc name, layer reference).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it only partly does: 'from' is clarified as comp (ae) vs sequence (pr), 'asLayer' as layer-in-active-document vs new document, and 'time' is gestured at with 'at a time'. The 'sequence' and 'compositionName' parameters are never explained, nor is the time units/format, leaving two of five parameters fully opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb chain (grab a frame → open it in Photoshop) and names both source hosts and both destination modes. The cross-app nature inherently separates it from ae_exportFrame and pr_exportFrame, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trailing parenthetical 'thumbnails, retouching, matte painting' implies the scenarios where this is the right call, but there is no explicit when-not and no pointer to ae_exportFrame / pr_exportFrame for the on-disk export case. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.